Morton v. Watson

• Decision Date: 08 November 1900
• Docket Number: 11,066
• Citation: 84 N.W. 91,60 Neb. 672
• Parties: J. STERLING MORTON ET AL. v. JOHN C. WATSON
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

84 N.W. 91

60 Neb. 672

J. STERLING MORTON ET AL. v. JOHN C. WATSON

No. 11,066

Supreme Court of Nebraska

November 8, 1900

ERROR to the district court for Otoe county. Tried below before RAMSEY, J. Reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Warren & Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.

Sloan & Moran, Matthew Gering, John V. Morgan, L. W. Colby and Frank Irvine, contra.

OPINION

NORVAL, C. J.

An information was presented to the district court of Otoe county, charging John C. Watson with unprofessional conduct involving moral turpitude and a violation of the Criminal Code. The information was signed by J. Sterling Morton and other foremost citizens of the county, was verified by one of their number, and contained various charges against said Watson, accusing him of having been guilty of numerous acts any of which, if true, it is claimed, would disqualify him from practicing his profession as attorney at law. A committee of members of the bar was appointed by the court to investigate into the truth or falsity of said charges, and make report thereon to the court. Watson appeared, a hearing was had and the committee made report finding that certain of said charges had not been sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, and that one of the specifications it refused to consider, because Watson was at said time under indictment, or information, of a criminal nature, for a criminal charge in connection therewith. The lower court approved said report, dismissed the proceeding against Watson, and taxed the costs thereof against those who signed the information. From said ruling and decision they prosecuted error proceeding, alleging that there was error in approving the report of the committee and in refusing to consider the specification before mentioned, and that the lower court erred in taxing the costs of the proceeding against the informants. We are of the opinion that no error was committed in approving the report. The evidence bearing upon the charges on which Watson was given a hearing was more or less conflicting, so much so that we can not say that there was any abuse of discretion in the court below approving and confirming the report of the committee.

The specification which the committee refused to consider charged Watson with forgery of a promissory note. It was found that he was under indictment for said alleged offense at the time the hearing was had, and for that reason said committee refused to consider the charge therein contained. We do not hold that it is indispensable that a hearing of this nature...